[When does a study of different therapies allow comparisons of their relative efficacy?]. / Wann ermöglicht eine Therapiestudie direkte Wirksamkeitsvergleiche zwischen verschiedenen Therapieformen?

UNLABELLED: Psychotherapy research is a form of evaluation research. Among many others, two types of evaluation can be distinguished: "comparative" and "non-comparative" evaluation studies. This differentiation, though its consequences are often neglected, is fundamental, since a study designed to answer a question concerning the non-comparative or "isolated" efficacy of a therapy cannot simultaneously serve to answer the question concerning the relative efficacy of two or more therapies aiming at the same goals or objectives--and vice versa. In this article, a small part of psychotherapy research, the 22 studies which have already been used by Grawe et al. (1994) in their comparisons of behaviour therapies and short-term psychodynamic therapies, is reanalyzed with respect to the two types of evaluation and to some consequences of this differentiation. RESULTS: On the whole, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the comparative efficacy of behaviour therapies and short-term psychodynamic therapies with regard to their specific goals, even if only some consequences of the distinction between two types of evaluation are taken into account. Among other reasons, this is due to the fact that the studies have not consequently been planned and executed as comparative evaluations. Only amelioration of the 22 studies can be regarded--with certain restrictions--as comparative outcome studies with respect to amelioration of certain symptoms. A further analysis of these studies shows that there is no evidence of a "highly significant" superiority of behaviour therapies over short-term psychodynamic therapies.

[Psychotherapy research--how it should (not) be done. An expert reanalysis of comparative studies by Grawe et al. (1994)]. / Psychotherapieforschung--wie man es (nicht) machen sollte. Eine Experten/Innen-Reanalyse von Vergleichsstudien bei Grawe et al. (1994).

22 psychotherapy outcome studies used in the Bernese meta-analysis by Grawe, Donati and Bernauer (1994) for a treatment comparison between behavioural and psychoanalytic-psychodynamic treatment concepts were reanalysed by 12 expert psychotherapy researchers independent of each other. Three clinical criteria served as basic criteria for the assessment of the methodological quality of the 22 comparative studies: treatment dosage, therapists' competence or expertise, and an adequate realisation of the intended treatment concept. The expert ratings were then compared with an evaluation of an assessment of a research team from the University of Ulm and with the one from the Bernese research team. Contrary to the Bernese meta-analysis, both the experts and the Ulm research group conclude that only 5 or 8 of the 22 studies, respectively, could be accepted for a relatively fair comparison between the treatments under study. Out of the 5/8 studies, none could be considered fully suitable for a treatment comparison, at the most only moderately suitable. These remaining 5 or 8 studies, respectively, do not prove superiority of one treatment over the other. Hence, the "Dodo Bird Verdict" stands up under scrutiny.

The all-sky camera revitalized.

An all-sky camera, a ground imager used since the 1950's in the aeronomy and space physics studies, was refurbished with a modern control, digitization, and archiving system. Monochromatic and broadband digital images of airglow and aurora are continuously integrated and recorded by the low-cost unmanned system, which is located in northern Canada. Radiometric corrections applied to the data include noise subtraction, normalization to a flat-field response, and absolute calibration. The images are geometrically corrected with star positions and projected onto a geographic or geomagnetic coordinate system. An illustration of the application of corrected all-sky camera images to the study of auroral spirals is given.